Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer TakeBack Campaign Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Computer_TakeBack_Campaign

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. slight consensus towards deleting. Article doesn't have any strong refs nor have they been provided. In other words, it appears to be notable for a single event only. Thus, deleting with no prejudice against creation if/when reliable sources are found. tedder (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer TakeBack Campaign

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable recycling initiative. No sources support notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 20:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gotta look for them, to find them. Inept nomination; 'power user' does not mean horsepower, but finesse. Incident found with "What links here": Yahoo Search for "Computer+TakeBack+Campaign+plane+banner" and sources for the incident that I added to the article. Anarchangel (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A single publicity stunt does not create a notable organization.—Kww(talk) 12:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No actual evidence that what they did was important in the recycling movement. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a stub, needing significant updating, expansion and citations, but should not be deleted. The Computer TakeBack Campaign (now the Electronics TakeBack Coalition) is a critically important electronics recycling initiative involving organizations and individuals across North America and having significant impacts on both private sector behavior & public policy. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. For some reason this debate was not transcluded on the log for the 15th of August and has remained open since then. Since it can use a little more participation, I have relisted it. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wood (environmental campaigner) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of notability, although rather low. Plenty of extra ref can be found. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to be cited frequently in the media regarding electronics recycling. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If DGG has satisfied himself that the article should be deleted, that is good enough for me. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Of the article's two sources, the second doesn't even mention the group. And while the stunt may have gotten two sentences in an article about Jobs (and btw: an article by the Associated Press is not the same as a press release), that doesn't mean that Apple's actions before and after the stunt can be said to be related. If there's anything sourced and encyclopedic here, move it to Ted Smith (environmentalist). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.